### In the



# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________________

No. 16

‐ 4193

W.G.A.,

Petitioner

,

v.

J EFFERSON B. S ESSIONS III,

Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent

.

____________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. Axxx

‐ xxx

‐ xxx.

____________________

A RGUED J ANUARY 18, 2018

— D ECIDED A UGUST 21, 2018

____________________

Before S YKES and H AMILTON

, Circuit Judges

, and L EE

,

District Judge

. *

H AMILTON

, Circuit Judge

. In 2015, ta tt ooed members of the

Mara 18 gang held a gun to petitioner W.G.A.’s head and

* Of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.2 No. 16

‐ 4193

threatened to kill him. 1 The Mara 18—also known as the

“Calle 18,” “Barrio 18,” or “Eighteenth Street” gang—is one

of the two main gangs operating in El Salvador. Together with

their rivals, MS

‐ 13, the Mara 18 terrorize the Salvadoran pop

‐

ulation and government. The gangs use violence to exercise

an enormous degree of social control over their territories,

dictating where residents can walk, whom they can talk to,

what they can wear, and when they must be inside their

homes. The gangs have orchestrated labor strikes, brokered a

now

‐ defunct truce with the government, and plo tt ed to bomb

government buildings. They brag about in fl uencing elections

and controlling political campaigns within their territories.

They extort millions of dollars from local businesses through

threats of violence, and they are largely responsible for El Sal

‐

vador’s homicide rate—one of the highest in the world. 2 Two

days after the Mara 18 threatened W.G.A., he fl ed to the

United States.

The Department of Homeland Security apprehended

W.G.A. for illegally entering the United States and began re

‐

moval proceedings against him. W.G.A. applied for asylum,

1 We refer to petitioner with an initialed pseudonym to protect his

identity. See Doe v. Gonzales

, 484 F.3d 445, 446 (7th Cir. 2007).

2 According to a report in the record by the U.S. Department of State,

the 2015 homicide rate in El Salvador was 103 murders per year for every

100,000 citizens. For context, Chicago has a murder rate of about 17.5 hom

‐

icides per 100,000 inhabitants. Matthew Friedman, Ames Grawert & James

Cullen, NYU School of Law Brennan Center for Justice, Crime in 2016: Up

‐

dated Analysis

, Table 2, p. 3 (data updated Dec. 19, 2016), available at

http://www.brennancente r.org/analysis/crime

‐ 2016

‐ updated

‐ analysis.

The State Department estimates that the national homicide rate in the

United States is about 4.5 murders per year per 100,000 citizens.No. 16

‐ 4193 3

statutory withholding of removal, and deferral of removal un

‐

der Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, arguing that

the Mara 18 gang would kill him if he returned to El Salvador.

The immigration judge denied his applications and ordered

removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed

W.G.A.’s appeal, and he petitions this court for review. We

grant W.G.A.’s petition for review and remand to the Board

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Factual & Procedural Background

W.G.A. is a citizen of El Salvador who arrived in the

United States in January 2016. The immigration judge found

W.G.A. credible, and the Board of Immigration Appeals af

‐

fi rmed that fi nding. We use W.G.A.’s testimony and the im

‐ migration judge’s fi ndings to provide the factual context in

this case.

W.G.A. grew up in a small farming community of about

170 families. In 2013, the Mara 18 gang began operating in his

rural community. By 2015 there were about 20 local gang

members. The gang engaged in their usual activities: extort

‐ ing la renta

, or “rent,” from local businesses, recruiting young

men as new members, and “disappearing” (as a transitive

verb) those who refused to join.

One day in 2014, petitioner’s younger brother S.R.P. failed

to return home from a trip to the store. Petitioner and his

mother searched for S.R.P. When they could not fi nd him,

they guessed that the gang had forcibly recruited him. About

two months later, S.R.P. called petitioner. He was crying and

said that he did not know where he was and could not talk

long because the gang might kill him. S.R.P. then hung up ab

‐4 No. 16

‐ 4193

ruptly. Petitioner told his mother of the call, but neither con

‐

tacted the police because they felt it would be useless. They

had seen others in their community seek help from the police

without success. Others had disappeared after reporting

crimes to police.

A few months later, the family learned that S.R.P. had

been arrested. Petitioner’s mother a tt ended a court proceed

‐ ing, where she saw that S.R.P. had a gang ta tt oo on his hand.

S.R.P. remained in prison until November 2015 when, on the

day of his release, he called W.G.A. to say that he did not want

to be a part of the gang anymore. S.R.P. said he could not

come home for fear of what the gang would do, but he did not

tell W.G.A. where he was going. W.G.A. assumed that his

brother headed toward Guatemala.

The next day, a man called W.G.A. from a private number.

The man told W.G.A. to “be careful” and that “they’re looking

for you,” and hung up without identifying himself. The fol

‐ lowing day—two days after S.R.P. left prison—four ta tt ooed

gang members approached W.G.A. at his house. They asked

him where his brother was. When W.G.A. responded that he

did not know, one man grabbed him by the collar of his shirt,

threw him to the ground, drew a gun, and put it to his head.

One of the men told petitioner: “if you don’t [hand] over your

brother, you’re going to die here.” 3 The men told W.G.A. that

he had four days to comply or they would kill him. They also

told him that they would kill him and his family if anyone

spoke to the police.

3 The transcript reads: “if you don’t have over your brother, you’re

going to die here.” We read “have” as a typographical error.No. 16

‐ 4193 5

Fearing for his life, W.G.A. fl ed two days later. He traveled

through Guatemala and Mexico to the United States. Since

W.G.A. left El Salvador, gang members have repeatedly

threatened his family—over the phone and in person—to de

‐

mand his and his brother’s whereabouts. Petitioner’s mother

was so frightened by the threats that she arranged for her

other teenage son, J.R.P., to go into hiding.

In January 2016, W.G.A. entered the United States through

Texas without valid entry documents. The Department of

Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against

him. See 8 C.F.R. § 1239.1. W.G.A. conceded that he was re

‐

movable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). He then applied

for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, withholding of removal un

‐

der 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and deferral of removal under Arti

‐

cle 3 of the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c),

1208.18.

The immigration judge concluded that W.G.A. did not

qualify for any of his asserted grounds of relief and ordered

removal. W.G.A. appealed to the Board of Immigration Ap

‐ peals, which agreed with the immigration judge and dis

‐

missed W.G.A.’s appeal. The immigration judge’s order of re

‐

moval became fi nal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(a), and W.G.A. peti

‐

tioned for review in this court, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1).

While W.G.A.’s appeal was pending before the Board, DHS

wrongfully removed him to El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.6(a) (staying execution of immigration decisions while

appeal is pending). This removal did not a ff ect the Board’s or

our jurisdiction. Ma tt er of Diaz

‐ Garcia

, 25 I. & N. Dec. 794 (BIA

2012); Marin

‐ Rodriguez v. Holder

, 612 F.3d 591, 593–94 (7th Cir.

2010). We ordered brie fi ng on whether we had the authority

to order DHS to permit W.G.A. to return to the United States6 No. 16

‐ 4193

while his appeal was pending. Rather than litigate the issue

further, the government agreed to facilitate W.G.A.’s return.

The parties have successfully returned W.G.A. to the United

States, where he remains detained.

II. Scope of Review

It is helpful to start by clarifying the scope of our review.

The answer depends on whether the Board’s order is inde

‐ pendent of or supplemented the immigration judge’s deci

‐

sion. See Liu v. Ashcroft

, 380 F.3d 307, 311 (7th Cir. 2004). When

the Board issues an independent opinion that replaces the im

‐ migration judge’s reasoning with its own, our review is lim

‐

ited to the Board’s opinion. Jabateh v. Lynch

, 845 F.3d 332, 337

(7th Cir. 2017), citing Sarhan v. Holder

, 658 F.3d 649, 653 (7th

Cir. 2011). Our review is broader when the Board relies on the

immigration judge’s fi ndings and supplements that opinion

“with additional observations.” Sarhan

, 658 F.3d at 653. In

those cases, we review the immigration judge’s fi ndings as

supplemented by the Board’s. Id.

, citing Mema v. Gonzales

, 474

F.3d 412, 416 (7th Cir. 2007). In a footnote, W.G.A. states that

our review is limited to the Board’s opinion. The A tt orney

General argues that the Board’s order was supplementary to

the immigration judge’s decision. We agree with the A tt orney

General’s reading and see no reason in this case to narrow our

review.

III. Asylum and Withholding of Removal

To qualify for asylum, W.G.A. must show that he is “un

‐

able or unwilling to return” to El Salvador “because of perse

‐

cution or a well

‐ founded fear of persecution.” 8 U.S.C.

§§ 1158(b)(1)(A), 1101(a)(42)(A). The persecution must be “onNo. 16

‐ 4193 7

account of” one of fi ve protected grounds: “race, religion, na

‐ tionality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion.” § 1101(a)(42)(A). If W.G.A. proves that he was per

‐

secuted in the past because of one or more of the protected

grounds, he is presumed to have a well

‐ founded fear of future

persecution on the same grounds. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). The

A tt orney General can rebut that presumption by showing that

country conditions have changed or that W.G.A. can safely

relocate to another part of El Salvador. § 1208.13(b)(1),

(b)(1)(i). Withholding of removal is similar. The A tt orney

General must withhold removal of W.G.A. if his “life or free

‐

dom would be threatened in” El Salvador because of one of

the same fi ve protected grounds. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). If

he shows past persecution, W.G.A. is again entitled to a re

‐

bu tt able presumption that his life or freedom would be threat

‐

ened. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i).

W.G.A. has shown past persecution. He testi fi ed, and the

immigration judge credited his testimony, that the Mara 18

threatened his life at gunpoint. That point is not in dispute in

this case. The Board found that the threat amounted to perse

‐

cution. See Nakibuka v. Gonzales

, 421 F.3d 473, 477 (7th Cir.

2005) (“A death threat, especially one that is accompanied by

an a tt acker pressing a gun to the victim’s head, is a serious

factor supporting a fi nding of persecution.”), citing Boykov v.

INS

, 109 F.3d 413, 416 (7th Cir. 1997), and Mitev v. INS

, 67 F.3d

1325, 1331 (7th Cir. 1995).

The fi rst disputed issue is whether the persecution was

motivated by a reason covered by the asylum statutes. W.G.A.

contends that the gang was motivated by his membership in

one of two particular social groups: (1) members of his nu

‐8 No. 16

‐ 4193

clear family or (2) family members of ta tt ooed former Salva

‐

doran gang members. The immigration judge and the Board

found that this persecution was not su ffi ciently connected to

W.G.A.’s membership in a particular social group. We decide

the issue by addressing two questions: (1) whether W.G.A.

has shown that he is a member of a qualifying social group;

and (2) whether he has shown that the Mara 18 persecuted

him on account of his membership in that group. We agree

with W.G.A. that he has identi fi ed a cognizable social group

and that the record compels the conclusion that the Mara 18

persecuted him on account of his membership in it.

A. General Remand

We fi rst address the A tt orney General’s request for a gen

‐

eral remand. The A tt orney General made no substantive ar

‐

guments related to asylum or withholding of removal in this

appeal. Instead, he requests that we remand to the Board for

reconsideration without engaging in any review ourselves.

In some past cases, we have allowed the A tt orney General

to seek a remand without confessing error so that the Board

can reconsider asylum decisions “in light of the emerging case

law.” Ren v. Gonzales

, 440 F.3d 446, 448 (7th Cir. 2006). In some

cases where we have accommodated these requests, we have

been disappointed: the Board has disregarded the A tt orney

General’s stated reasons for remand. See, e.g. Reyes

‐ Mendez v.

Lynch

, 629 Fed. App’x 757, 761 (7th Cir. 2015) (criticizing

Board for repeating “its social

‐ group analysis word for word”

after the A tt orney General requested general remand for

Board to reconsider social

‐ group analysis); see also Marin

‐ Rodriguez v. Holder

, 612 F.3d 591, 595–96 (7th Cir. 2010)

(rejecting A tt orney General’s request for a general remand for

Board to reconsider merits, when Board’s position was that itNo. 16

‐ 4193 9

did not have jurisdiction to consider merits). In light of these

cases, we will grant a general remand only when there is a

persuasive reason to do so, at least where, as here, the request

is opposed by the petitioner.

The A tt orney General o ff ers two reasons for a general re

‐

mand. First, he requests that the Board have a chance to re

‐

consider whether “family members of ta tt ooed former Salva

‐

doran gang members” is cognizable in light of circuit and

Board precedents that predate this case. The A tt orney General

does not explain why the Board needs a second chance to ap

‐ ply case law that was available when it decided W.G.A.’s ap

‐ peal, and we decline to remand on that basis.

Second, the A tt orney General seeks a remand to permit the

Board to consider Ma tt er of L

‐ E

‐ A

‐ , 27 I. & N. Dec. 40 (BIA

2017) (requiring petitioner to demonstrate that family rela

‐ tionship is at least one central reason for persecution). The

Board issued L

‐ E

‐ A

‐ after it dismissed W.G.A.’s appeal, and

the A tt orney General argues that L

‐ E

‐ A

‐ provides “critical

guidance” for cases that involve “family

‐ based particular so

‐

cial groups.” But L

‐ E

‐ A

‐ did not establish a new rule. As the

government agreed at oral argument, L

‐ E

‐ A

‐ applied the same

analysis that the Board has followed since at least 2007. See In

re J

‐ B

‐ N

‐ & S

‐ M

‐ , 24 I. & N. Dec. 208, 212–16 (BIA 2007) (inter

‐ preting the “one central reason” requirement for asylum). In

this case, the immigration judge applied the already

‐ estab

‐

lished rules summarized in L

‐ E

‐ A

‐ and found that social

‐

group membership was not a central motivation for the Mara

18. We decline to remand on this basis as well.10 No. 16

‐ 4193

B. Cognizable Social Group

The fi rst substantive question is whether W.G.A. is a mem

‐

ber of a particular social group within the meaning of the Im

‐ migration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).

Whether a group quali fi es as a “particular social group” is a

question of law that we review de novo

, though we give Chev

‐

ron deference to the Board’s “reasonable interpretation set

forth in precedential opinions.” Cece v. Holder

, 733 F.3d 662,

668–69 (7th Cir. 2013) (en banc), citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.

Natural Resources Defense Council

, 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984).

In Ma tt er of Acosta

, the Board interpreted “membership in

a particular social group” to mean “an individual who is a

member of a group of persons all of whom share a common,

immutable characteristic.” 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 233 (BIA 1985),

overruled, in part, on other grounds by Ma tt er of Mogharrabi

,

19 I. & N. Dec. 439 (BIA 1987). The Board de fi ned “immutable

characteristic” to mean a characteristic “that either is beyond

the power of an individual to change or that is so fundamental

to his identity or conscience that it ought not be required to

be changed.” Id. “Particular social group” is an ambiguous

phrase, and we have deferred to the Board’s interpretation in

Acosta

. Cece

, 733 F.3d at 669, citing Lwin v. INS

, 144 F.3d 505,

511 (7th Cir. 1998).

In the decades since Acosta

, the Board has added social dis

‐

tinction (also called social visibility) and particularity as two

requirements in addition to the immutable

‐ characteristic test.

See, e.g., In re C

‐ A

‐ , 23 I. & N. Dec. 951, 957, 959 (BIA 2006).

These two requirements are at issue here. W.G.A. proposed

two social groups as the basis for asylum and withholding of

removal: (1) members of his nuclear family; and (2) family

members of ta tt ooed former Salvadoran gang members. TheNo. 16

‐ 4193 11

Board and immigration judge accepted the fi rst but rejected

the second as overbroad and not “a socially distinct group

within El Salvador.”

W.G.A. correctly points out that we have not yet accorded

Chevron deference to the Board’s interpretation that includes

social distinction and particularity. He also cites several cases

in which we have disapproved—sometimes strongly—of

these two requirements. See, e.g., N.L.A. v. Holder

, 744 F.3d

425, 438 (7th Cir. 2014) (“[I]t would be antithetical to asylum

law to deny refuge to a group of persecuted individuals who

have valid claims merely because too many have valid

claims.”); Gatimi v. Holder

, 578 F.3d 611, 615–617 (7th Cir.

2009) (rejecting social distinction because “it makes no sense”

given examples of previously recognized particular social

groups). Those cases, however, either predate or fail to ad

‐

dress intervening Board opinions that engage in statutory in

‐ terpretation and explain the Board’s reasoning. See Ma tt er of

M

‐ E

‐ V

‐ G

‐ , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014); Ma tt er of W

‐ G

‐ R

‐ , 26

I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014); see also Gatimi

, 578 F.3d at 615

(rejecting social distinction and particularity in part because

Board failed to explain its reasoning “in this or any other

case”). Whether the Board’s particularity and social distinc

‐

tion requirements are entitled to Chevron deference remains

an open question in this circuit. 4

4 W.G.A.’s arguments that the Board’s interpretation is unreasonable

have some force. He argues that social distinction and particularity create

a conceptual trap that is difficult, if not impossible, to navigate. The appli

‐

cant must identify a group that is broad enough that the society as a whole

recognizes it, but not so broad that it fails particularity. And as we have

stated, rejecting a social group because it is too broad “would be akin to

saying that the victims of widespread governmental ethnic cleansing can

‐

not receive asylum simply because there are too many of them.” N.L.A.

,12 No. 16

‐ 4193

We decline to make the Chevron determination in this case,

where the government has chosen not to make any substan

‐

tive arguments on the issue and there are alternative grounds

for decision. The Board and immigration judge agreed that

W.G.A.’s second proposed group—membership in his nu

‐

clear family—is cognizable. See Torres v. Mukasey

, 551 F.3d

616, 629 (7th Cir. 2008) (“Our prior opinions make it clear that

we consider family to be a cognizable social group.”), citing

Iliev v. INS

, 127 F.3d 638, 642 & n.4 (7th Cir. 1997). Because we

fi nd that the record compels the conclusion that W.G.A. was

persecuted on account of his membership in his nuclear fam

‐ ily, we need not resolve the Chevron question regarding the

family members of former gang members.

C. Nexus to Persecution

Next, W.G.A. challenges the Board’s fi nding that he was

not persecuted “on account of” his membership in his family.

Whether W.G.A. met this burden is a question of fact that we

review for substantial evidence. Martinez

‐ Buendia v. Holder

,

616 F.3d 711, 715 (7th Cir. 2010), citing Mabasa v. Gonzales

, 455

F.3d 740, 744 (7th Cir. 2006). We may reverse “only if we de

‐

termine that the evidence compels a di ff erent result.” Cece

,

733 F.3d at 675–76, quoting FH

‐ T v. Holder

, 723 F.3d 833, 838

(7th Cir. 2013); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

To be eligible for asylum, W.G.A. must show that he was

persecuted “on account of” his social

‐ group membership. 8

744 F.3d at 438, citing Cece

, 733 F.3d at 675. W.G.A. also claims that in the

decade since the Board introduced social distinction and particularity, it

has approved only one new particular social group. The Board has not

responded to this troubling assertion.No. 16

‐ 4193 13

U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A)–(B)(i), 1101(a)(42)(A). In 2005, Con

‐

gress clari fi ed that the protected ground must be “at least one

central reason” for the persecution. See REAL ID Act of 2005,

Pub L. No. 109–13, § 101(a)(3), 119 Stat. 302, 303 (2005), codi

‐

fi ed at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B). The protected trait does not

have to be the only reason for the persecution, but it “cannot

play a minor role.” L

‐ E

‐ A

‐ , 27 I. & N. Dec. at 44, quoting J

‐ B

‐

N

‐ & S

‐ M

‐ , 24 I. & N. Dec. at 214. Di ff erent language governs

eligibility for withholding of removal. Congress has not

amended the sections governing withholding to include the

“one central reason” language. Compare 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) with 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).

To start, in W.G.A.’s case, the Board stated the wrong legal

standard for withholding of removal. Confusingly, the Board

reasoned that because “the respondent did not establish the

lower burden of proof applicable to asylum, he necessarily

did not establish his eligibility for withholding of removal,

which carries a higher burden of proof.” This is not quite cor

‐

rect. Withholding of removal carries a higher burden on two

questions: the severity of the harm the applicant faces (perse

‐

cution versus threat to life or freedom) and the likelihood that

the applicant will be harmed (well

‐ founded fear versus clear

probability). See Ma tt er of H

‐ L

‐ H

‐ & Z

‐ Y

‐ Z

‐ , 25 I. & N. Dec.

209, 218 (BIA 2010) (reasoning that applicant who failed to

show fear of persecution necessarily had not shown a threat

to life or freedom); Toptchev v. INS

, 295 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir.

2002) (reasoning that applicant who failed to show a well

‐

founded fear necessarily had not shown clear probability).

The nexus requirement, however, is the same for both asylum

and withholding of removal. At least, that’s the position the

Board has taken in other cases. See, e.g., Ma tt er of C

‐ T

‐ L

‐ , 25 I.14 No. 16

‐ 4193

& N. Dec. 341, 343 (BIA 2010). 5 Because W.G.A. does not argue

that di ff erent standards should govern the two claims, we ap

‐ ply the “one central reason” standard throughout our analy

‐

sis.

Returning to the merits, this record compels the conclu

‐

sion that W.G.A.’s membership in his nuclear family was one

central reason for the persecution that both sides agree he suf

‐

fered. Testimony by W.G.A. and his family members leaves

no doubt that the gang repeatedly targeted the entire family

because of their relationship to S.R.P. Country reports and

news articles throughout the record corroborate this testi

‐

mony and demonstrate widespread recognition that the Sal

‐

vadoran gangs target nuclear family units to enforce their or

‐

ders and to discourage defection. In other words, substantial

evidence does not support the immigration judge’s fi nding on

the lack of a nexus between the gang’s persecution of W.G.A.

and his membership in the family.

To start, the timing of the persecution demonstrates that

W.G.A.’s family relationship with his brother caused the gang

to target W.G.A. The gang members threatened W.G.A. at

gunpoint just two days after S.R.P. said he was defecting. The

immigration judge and Board doubted whether S.R.P. had ac

‐ tually defected, but that detail is unimportant. What ma tt ers

is that the gang was looking for S.R.P., likely because they be

‐

lieved he had defected. What’s more, the gang’s own words

reveal their motivation. When the gang held a gun to W.G.A.’s

5 The Ninth Circuit has recently held that position unreasonable and

not entitled to Chevron deference. See Barajas

‐ Romero v. Lynch

, 846 F.3d 351,

360 (9th Cir. 2017).No. 16

‐ 4193 15

head, they demanded that W.G.A. reveal his brother’s loca

‐

tion. And when the gang warned W.G.A. not to notify the po

‐

lice, they threatened to kill his entire family.

W.G.A. also provided examples from his community as

circumstantial evidence of the gang’s motivation. See

Martinez

‐ Buendia

, 616 F.3d at 715 (applicant can prove

motivation by direct or circumstantial evidence), citing INS v.

Elias

‐ Zacarias

, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992). W.G.A. testi fi ed that

when a young man he knew reported a robbery to the police,

gang members “disappeared” him and his father in

retaliation. W.G.A.’s mother submi tt ed an a ffi davit that

described a young woman in the community who refused

requests to become a “gang member’s woman.” In response,

the gang disappeared her and her brother. These anecdotes

are analogous to W.G.A.’s situation: S.R.P. crossed the gang,

and they retaliated by targeting his nuclear family.

Country reports and news articles corroborate this testi

‐

mony. A report by the U.S. Department of State says that “the

families of gang members often face the same risks of being

killed or disappearing as the gang members themselves.” R.

290. The United Nations also reports that family members can

“also be a target for a tt acks and assassination by gangs, some

‐

times even after the person who was initially targeted by the

gang in question has fl ed or has already been killed.” R. 368.

One news article describes a woman who went into hiding

after the gang accused her husband of talking to police. R.

477–78. Another describes a man who rescued his daughter

after gang members abducted and raped her. As retribution,

the gang shot and killed the man’s wife. R. 463. These reports

are only a few examples. We see nothing in the record that16 No. 16

‐ 4193

calls into question W.G.A.’s claim that he was targeted be

‐

cause of his family membership.

Despite the extensive record, the Board adopted the immi

‐ gration judge’s conclusion that W.G.A. had not shown a suf

‐

fi cient nexus because other family members continue to live

in El Salvador unharmed. This is factually inaccurate. W.G.A.,

his mother, and his sister described how the gang continued

to target the family. W.G.A.’s mother reported that she had

received at least four threatening phone calls from “angry,”

yelling gang members and that the calls continued until she

threw her cell

‐ phone chip away. W.G.A.’s mother and sister

described how masked gang members have appeared at their

home at least twice, threatening them and demanding to

know where S.R.P. and W.G.A. were. We cannot accept the

immigration judge’s conclusion that threatening phone calls

and home invasion by masked gang members are not evi

‐

dence that other family members have been harmed. Plus, as

the government correctly acknowledged in oral argument, it

was improper for the immigration judge to rely on a lack of

harm to other family members, without more, to fi nd that

W.G.A. was not targeted on account of his kinship ties. See

R.R.D. v. Holder

, 746 F.3d 807, 809 (7th Cir. 2014) (reasoning

that statute “does not require that all members of” the pro

‐

tected group “su ff er the same fate”); see also Cordova v. Holder

,

759 F.3d 332, 339 (4th Cir. 2014) (refusing to uphold Board’s

reasoning that petitioner could not have been targeted on ac

‐

count of his kinship ties because other family members were

not targeted for same reason).

The immigration judge also relied on W.G.A.’s testimony

that the gang has a personal vende tt a against him. But that

testimony does not actually support the immigration judge’sNo. 16

‐ 4193 17

fi nding. On cross

‐ examination, the government’s lawyer

asked W.G.A. if the “gangs just have a

... personal vende tt a

against you.” W.G.A. responded a ffi rmatively. But this ques

‐

tion does not contradict the overwhelming record evidence

that the gang targeted W.G.A. because of his familial relation

‐ ship to S.R.P. The government did not ask W.G.A. why the

gang had a personal vende tt a against him, and the most plau

‐

sible answer is because he is related to S.R.P. The record sug

‐

gests only one other potential motive for the persecution.

W.G.A. testi fi ed that, in 2014, members of the gang asked him

to do favors for the gang and he refused. Even if W.G.A.’s re

‐

fusal to help the gang in 2014 in fl uenced the gang’s decision

to target him in 2015, that one fact does not undermine the

overwhelming evidence showing that W.G.A.’s familial ties

were one central reason for his persecution.

Finally, the immigration judge also improperly stressed

that W.G.A.’s parents and seven siblings remain in El Salva

‐

dor. This is true, although the family is so fearful that they

sent their other teenage son, J.R.P., into hiding. This is not ev

‐

idence of a safe family. Additionally, the fact that some family

members have not relocated within El Salvador has li tt le force

in light of the rest of the record. Country reports describe how

relocation is di ffi cult and often dangerous: the choice is be

‐

tween remaining in the Mara 18’s territory and risking retri

‐

bution, or relocating to the rival gang’s territory and being

killed by them. A United Nations report estimates that

600,000 to 700,000 Salvadorans—or 10% of the population—

are a ffi liated with the gangs and act as lookouts in the gangs’

territories. R. 338. The record describes various incidents

when gangs killed non

‐ members who had crossed gang

boundaries for innocent reasons like visiting a family member

or walking to school. R. 338, 470, 547. And W.G.A. testi fi ed18 No. 16

‐ 4193

about a community member who went to work at a business

in MS

‐ 13 territory and who, upon arrival, was asked to iden

‐ tify himself and where he came from. When he revealed that

he lived in Mara 18 territory, the questioner told him he

would be killed if he entered MS

‐ 13 territory again. Once

again, W.G.A.’s testimony corroborates the indirect evidence

in the record. It means li tt le, therefore, that W.G.A.’s family

has not sought to move elsewhere to avoid threats.

IV. Convention Against Torture

As a third ground for relief, W.G.A. seeks to defer removal

under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. W.G.A.

bears the burden of showing “that it is more likely than not

that he

... would be tortured if removed” to El Salvador. 8

C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Recognizing that precise probabilities

are di ffi cult to prove and assess, we have interpreted this

language to mean a “substantial risk that a given alien will be

tortured if removed from the United States.” Rodriguez

‐

Molinero v. Lynch

, 808 F.3d 1134, 1135–36 (7th Cir. 2015).

Unlike asylum and statutory withholding of removal, W.G.A.

does not have to show that the torture relates to any protected

grounds. But the torture must be “in fl icted by or at the

instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public

o ffi cial.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).

W.G.A. argues that a remand is necessary because the

Board and immigration judge applied the wrong legal stand

‐

ard and ignored key evidence. We agree. Neither the immi

‐ gration judge nor the Board considered W.G.A.’s key evi

‐

dence that he would likely be tortured in El Salvador. The

agency must consider “all evidence relevant to the possibility

of future torture,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3), and must “an

‐

nounce its decision in terms su ffi cient to enable a reviewingNo. 16

‐ 4193 19

court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely

reacted.” Ferreira v. Lynch

, 831 F.3d 803, 810 (7th Cir. 2016),

quoting Solis

‐ Chavez v. Holder

, 662 F.3d 462, 469 (7th Cir. 2011).

Together, the Board and immigration judge considered only

that W.G.A. had not been tortured in the past and that his

family remained in El Salvador unharmed. Neither consid

‐

ered that the gang continues to threaten W.G.A.’s family and

raid their house looking for him. Nor did they consider the

strongest evidence of the risk of torture: that masked gang

members raided the house of a close family friend at night

and, when they found him there, murdered and dismem

‐

bered him for disobeying their orders. 6

The Board also applied the wrong legal standard when it

found that W.G.A. had not shown government acquiescence.

The Board stated that W.G.A. had “not indicated that there

was any involvement of a public o ffi cial” in “any of the threats

directed” at him. W.G.A. does not need to show that a public

o ffi cial was involved directly. Sarhan

, 658 F.3d at 657–58. Per

‐ haps for this reason, the immigration judge and Board ig

‐

nored key evidence on this point too. They did not address

the extensive record that describes how corruption, judges’

refusal to protect witness anonymity, and the police’s fear of

reprisal all allow gangs to act with a high degree of impunity.

And when the agency found that the police arrested S.R.P.

twice for gang activity—and therefore do not acquiesce to any

torture—the agency failed to consider the evidence that gang

6 The briefs misread what the record says about the gang’s motivation

for this murder. W.G.A. testified that on that night, the gang was out look

‐ ing for the friend, W.G.A., and S.R.P. W.G.A.’s sister and mother both said

that the gang murdered the family friend because he refused to join them

and collect extortion on their behalf.20 No. 16

‐ 4193

members continue to operate from within prisons. For these

reasons, we also remand W.G.A.’s claim for deferred removal

under the Convention Against Torture.

Conclusion

We remand to the Board for further proceedings con

‐

sistent with this opinion. On remand, the Board must also

consider two issues that we do not discuss. First, the Board

must consider the immigration judge’s fi nding that W.G.A.

would be able to relocate within El Salvador. Because the im

‐ migration judge incorrectly found that W.G.A. had not been

persecuted in the past, the judge applied the wrong burden

on the question of relocation. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(ii),

1208.16(b)(1)(ii) (placing burden on government to rebut pre

‐ sumption when applicant shows past persecution). Second,

the Board must review the immigration judge’s fi ndings that

the Salvadoran government is not unable or unwilling to pre

‐

vent the persecution. See, e.g., Pramatarov v. Gonzales

, 454 F.3d

764, 766 (7th Cir. 2006), citing Hor v. Gonzales

, 421 F.3d 497,

501–02 (7th Cir. 2005). These issues remain open and require

reconsideration on remand.

We therefore GRANT the petition for review and

REMAND the case to the agency for further proceedings con

‐

sistent with this opinion.